Του Σταύρου Κυριαζή
Η λέξη "αγύρτης" προέρχεται από την αρχαία ελληνική λέξη "αγυρτεία" εκ του αιολικού τύπου "άγυρις" που σήμαινε συνάθροιση - αγορά. Κατ΄ άλλη εκδοχή ετυμολογείται από το συγγενές μ΄ αυτή αρχαίο ρήμα "αγυρτάζω" που σήμαινε "μαζεύω χρήματα" ή και "ζητώ ελεημοσύνη".
Ο αγύρτης διαφέρει του απατεώνα ως προς τούτο: Ενώ και οι δύο παριστάνουν ψευδή πράγματα ως αληθινά ο μεν αγύρτης παριστάνει ως αληθή ψευδή πράγματα, τα οποία και ο κοινός νους και η σχετική κοινωνική πείρα μπορεί εύκολα να ελέγξει ότι αυτά όντως είναι ψευδή. Αντίθετα ο απατεώνας παριστά ψευδή πράγματα ως αληθή που τις περισσότερες φορές δεν είναι εύκολη η αναγνώρισή τους ούτε και από ειδικούς, αν δεν γίνει προηγουμένως μια σε βάθος έρευνα, για παράδειγμα κάποιος πουλά κλοπιμαία ως δικά του. Λόγω της διαφοράς αυτής ο Ποινικός Κώδικας εκλαμβάνει την μεν αγυρτεία ως πταίσμα, με κράτηση στα Αστυνομικά καταστήματα, την δε απάτη ως πλημμέλημα ή ακόμη και ως κακούργημα ανάλογα της ζημίας που έχει επέλθει.
Νεώτερον Εγκυκλοπαιδικόν Λεξικόν Ηλίου τ.1ος, σ.384.
Down with tax-dodging and posh chocsWHAT do General Electric, Vodafone, Fortnum & Mason, Citigroup, Barclays and Boots all have in common? Each has been branded a tax dodger by activists. In Britain a group called UK Uncut made headlines last month by occupying the Fortnum & Mason store in London (see picture), during broader protests against government cuts. US Uncut, a sister organisation, teamed up with the Yes Men, a group that plays pranks on the rich and powerful, to issue a fake press release. It announced that GE, which had earlier been accused of paying no American taxes in 2010 on profits of at least $5 billion, would give back to the government a $3.2 billion tax refund on April 18th, the day Americans were due to file their tax returns.
Under the broad banner of tax “dodging”, these companies are being accused of various manoeuvres which in fact seem to be perfectly legal and often desirable (who wants to pay too much tax?). Vodafone is being criticised for paying the British government only £1.2 billion ($1.9 billion) instead of the £6 billion activists claimed it owed, to settle a tax dispute. Yet the government declared itself happy with the amount paid.
The notion that GE paid no taxes in 2010, and even got a refund, seems to have come from a misreading of its accounts. Even so, the firm says it will have only a “small” American tax liability for last year, partly because of its “six sigma” approach to exploiting legal loopholes. Citigroup’s huge tax deductions are the result of its losses in the financial crisis. Fortnum & Mason was a target because its parent company has a big stake in a firm accused of using a holding company in Luxembourg to avoid £40m in British taxes. And so on.
The tax-dodging claims have struck a chord with voters worried about rising taxes. In March a British parliamentary committee began an inquiry into corporate tax avoidance. A congressional panel in America heard evidence in January from Martin Sullivan, a tax expert, of the drastic variations in the effective tax rates paid by different American firms, even ones in similar industries (see chart). Everyone from President Obama to GE (which insists it is desperate to close those dratted loopholes, at least if doing so is part of a broader reform) is saying that something must be done. The difficulty is figuring out what.
One thing on which there does seem to be a consensus is that America’s marginal rate of corporate income tax—at 35%, one of the world’s highest—must come down. It encourages multinationals doing business in America to record as much of their profit as possible elsewhere; and, furthermore, American tax law encourages them to keep that profit abroad, because it is taxed as it is brought in to the country.
Now, as it does from time to time, corporate America is calling for a tax holiday on foreign earnings, arguing that if brought home they could be used to create jobs, boost research and generally help the economy. However, a study of the most recent such tax holiday, in 2004, suggested it had little effect on employment and investment, with most of the benefits going to shareholders. The analysis—by Kristin Forbes, a former member of George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, and two colleagues—found that for every extra $1 of foreign profits American firms brought home, payouts to shareholders went up by 60-92 cents. Nonetheless, points out Alan Auerbach, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, the idea of another tax holiday, “like a lot of bad ideas, has bipartisan support.”
Tax authorities are supposed to have wised up to companies avoiding taxes by tinkering with the “transfer prices” their offshore divisions charge their onshore ones for goods and services. But there is still plenty of scope for doing so where intellectual-property rights and financing arrangements are concerned, says Michael Devereux of the Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation. It is not clear how much revenue is in practice lost, says Mr Devereux, though the system is about as complex as can be, and attempts to fix it often end up making it more complex still.
Any reform that significantly increases the tax bill for companies risks prompting them to move abroad, as governments have found to their cost. WPP, a marketing giant which left Britain for low-tax Ireland in 2008, is now considering returning, having looked into the reforms being planned by the new British government—suggesting that these reforms are unlikely to lead to footloose companies having to pay much more tax.
Mr Devereux would prefer a radically different system in which firms are taxed not where they say they make profits but where they generate sales: ie, where their consumers are. This would make sense, as it is relatively simple and would surely shift much of the tax base to bigger economies from tax havens. However, it is a long way from what is being considered, at least in Britain and America.
The immediate goal in America of cutting the headline corporate-tax rate would surely require an accompanying broadening of the tax base to pay for it, given the country’s huge budget deficit. To do this, some of the many tax breaks firms enjoy would need to be scrapped. This week John Boehner, the Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, tentatively suggested scrapping big oil firms’ multi-billion-dollar subsidies. However, many of the tax breaks that might be scrapped were created to encourage investment. Mr Auerbach notes that, in so far as they achieve this, there is a risk that ending them to pay for a lower headline rate of corporate tax might hurt the economy in the short term, even if it does some good in the long term. No wonder politicians are keener on talking about reform than on reforming.
Η λέξη "αγύρτης" προέρχεται από την αρχαία ελληνική λέξη "αγυρτεία" εκ του αιολικού τύπου "άγυρις" που σήμαινε συνάθροιση - αγορά. Κατ΄ άλλη εκδοχή ετυμολογείται από το συγγενές μ΄ αυτή αρχαίο ρήμα "αγυρτάζω" που σήμαινε "μαζεύω χρήματα" ή και "ζητώ ελεημοσύνη".
Ο αγύρτης διαφέρει του απατεώνα ως προς τούτο: Ενώ και οι δύο παριστάνουν ψευδή πράγματα ως αληθινά ο μεν αγύρτης παριστάνει ως αληθή ψευδή πράγματα, τα οποία και ο κοινός νους και η σχετική κοινωνική πείρα μπορεί εύκολα να ελέγξει ότι αυτά όντως είναι ψευδή. Αντίθετα ο απατεώνας παριστά ψευδή πράγματα ως αληθή που τις περισσότερες φορές δεν είναι εύκολη η αναγνώρισή τους ούτε και από ειδικούς, αν δεν γίνει προηγουμένως μια σε βάθος έρευνα, για παράδειγμα κάποιος πουλά κλοπιμαία ως δικά του. Λόγω της διαφοράς αυτής ο Ποινικός Κώδικας εκλαμβάνει την μεν αγυρτεία ως πταίσμα, με κράτηση στα Αστυνομικά καταστήματα, την δε απάτη ως πλημμέλημα ή ακόμη και ως κακούργημα ανάλογα της ζημίας που έχει επέλθει.
Νεώτερον Εγκυκλοπαιδικόν Λεξικόν Ηλίου τ.1ος, σ.384.
Reforming company taxes
Getting corporations to cough up
There are flaws in how companies are taxed, but fixing them will not be easy
Apr 28th 2011 | NEW YORK | from the print editionDown with tax-dodging and posh chocsUnder the broad banner of tax “dodging”, these companies are being accused of various manoeuvres which in fact seem to be perfectly legal and often desirable (who wants to pay too much tax?). Vodafone is being criticised for paying the British government only £1.2 billion ($1.9 billion) instead of the £6 billion activists claimed it owed, to settle a tax dispute. Yet the government declared itself happy with the amount paid.
The notion that GE paid no taxes in 2010, and even got a refund, seems to have come from a misreading of its accounts. Even so, the firm says it will have only a “small” American tax liability for last year, partly because of its “six sigma” approach to exploiting legal loopholes. Citigroup’s huge tax deductions are the result of its losses in the financial crisis. Fortnum & Mason was a target because its parent company has a big stake in a firm accused of using a holding company in Luxembourg to avoid £40m in British taxes. And so on.
One thing on which there does seem to be a consensus is that America’s marginal rate of corporate income tax—at 35%, one of the world’s highest—must come down. It encourages multinationals doing business in America to record as much of their profit as possible elsewhere; and, furthermore, American tax law encourages them to keep that profit abroad, because it is taxed as it is brought in to the country.
Now, as it does from time to time, corporate America is calling for a tax holiday on foreign earnings, arguing that if brought home they could be used to create jobs, boost research and generally help the economy. However, a study of the most recent such tax holiday, in 2004, suggested it had little effect on employment and investment, with most of the benefits going to shareholders. The analysis—by Kristin Forbes, a former member of George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, and two colleagues—found that for every extra $1 of foreign profits American firms brought home, payouts to shareholders went up by 60-92 cents. Nonetheless, points out Alan Auerbach, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, the idea of another tax holiday, “like a lot of bad ideas, has bipartisan support.”
Tax authorities are supposed to have wised up to companies avoiding taxes by tinkering with the “transfer prices” their offshore divisions charge their onshore ones for goods and services. But there is still plenty of scope for doing so where intellectual-property rights and financing arrangements are concerned, says Michael Devereux of the Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation. It is not clear how much revenue is in practice lost, says Mr Devereux, though the system is about as complex as can be, and attempts to fix it often end up making it more complex still.
Any reform that significantly increases the tax bill for companies risks prompting them to move abroad, as governments have found to their cost. WPP, a marketing giant which left Britain for low-tax Ireland in 2008, is now considering returning, having looked into the reforms being planned by the new British government—suggesting that these reforms are unlikely to lead to footloose companies having to pay much more tax.
Mr Devereux would prefer a radically different system in which firms are taxed not where they say they make profits but where they generate sales: ie, where their consumers are. This would make sense, as it is relatively simple and would surely shift much of the tax base to bigger economies from tax havens. However, it is a long way from what is being considered, at least in Britain and America.
The immediate goal in America of cutting the headline corporate-tax rate would surely require an accompanying broadening of the tax base to pay for it, given the country’s huge budget deficit. To do this, some of the many tax breaks firms enjoy would need to be scrapped. This week John Boehner, the Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, tentatively suggested scrapping big oil firms’ multi-billion-dollar subsidies. However, many of the tax breaks that might be scrapped were created to encourage investment. Mr Auerbach notes that, in so far as they achieve this, there is a risk that ending them to pay for a lower headline rate of corporate tax might hurt the economy in the short term, even if it does some good in the long term. No wonder politicians are keener on talking about reform than on reforming.
